Political/social philosophy of ANUS members

I study political philosophy at the graduate level, and I have a side interest in economics (a subject which is very wrapped up in political issues), so I've been interested for a while in getting a sense of what sorts of political/social views prevail among the members of this board. I mean this in a broad sense; I'm not interested in what you think about the finer points of the Bush tax cuts. One might characterize one's political views very broadly with terms such as 'conservative,' 'anarchist,' 'liberal,' and so on. One could get a little more specific while still broadly characterizing one's views, e.g., 'Rawlsian liberal,' 'Burkean conservative,' 'Anarcho-syndicalist,' and so on. A further specification of such views might include a description of the core commitments of those views. Thus, an anarcho-syndicalist might describe his or her view as anti-state, anti-capitalist, and perhaps collectivist (maybe...I'm not intimately familiar with this political philosophy.) The latter term, 'collectivist,' names a social philosophical view. So that's where the social philosophy comes into the picture here.

It seems to me from reading the various things posted up on this site and the users' comments on this board that most people here adhere to some sort of fascism or traditionalist conservatism. At the very least, there is a lot of collectivism and authoritarianism going around these parts. I have serious misgivings with such views, but whatever. A couple of people have expressed some libertarian sympathies in the past, and I know that there is at least one out-and-out anarcho-libertarian on this board (mandrake).

Personally, I am what might be described as "right-wing" libertarian. Core commitments: Anti-authoritarianism, anti-collectivism (I do not think collectives have any moral standing at all, nor do I think such abstract things as traditions and nations have moral standing), and robust private property rights. I arrived at this view from a deontological moral perspective, but when people want me to defend it on consequentialist grounds, I can certainly play that game.

Perhaps some of you don't have a name for whatever political/social views you hold, and perhaps you don't find naming them of much use, but if you can broadly characterize your views of these matters, please share. I am very interested to hear about these things.

The problem with much of modern politics comes from peoples insistence on the right/left symbols instead of doing what makes sense.

I dont like to adhere to any political/social label because I am a pragmatist. Because of this I tend to gravitate towards the right side of the spectrum.

I am aware that I need to become better read in history and philosophy before I can take an honest stance on anything of this nature. Much of traditionalism (as far as I understand it) resonates deeply with me though.

I dont like to adhere to any political/social label because I am a pragmatist. Because of this I tend to gravitate towards the right side of the spectrum.

Given what you've said here, I feel like I should recommend that you read A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles by Thomas Sowell (Sowell is black, and I don't know if you hate black people, but I recall seeing some remarks about "congoids" at the old main ANUS forum years ago, which for some reason doesn't exist anymore, so yeah...) Part of what Sowell does in this book is characterize a certain kind of Burkean/Hayekian pragmatic conservatism, as far as I can tell. It's a good primer on a certain strand of "right wing" thought that you might find congenial. There is a tinge of classical liberalism in all of this, though, so you might take issue with that. But it's a good read if you want to bone up on some political thought. I take issue with the use of the term "pragmatic" sometimes, however, since in many cases it's used to project an image of being non-ideological, which is highly misleading.

Personally, I am what might be described as "right-wing" libertarian. Core commitments: Anti-authoritarianism, anti-collectivism (I do not think collectives have any moral standing at all, nor do I think such abstract things as traditions and nations have moral standing), and robust private property rights. I arrived at this view from a deontological moral perspective, but when people want me to defend it on consequentialist grounds, I can certainly play that game.

Awesome. Regarding political and social views I would be pretty similar to you except more left-wing to the extent economics is intertwined in the equation. I loath things like patriotism, tradition for the sake of tradition, etc. However I'm strongly spiritual and have a whole paradigm, and I don't think a frontal approach can manage to land that political/social ideal into reality, so frequently I adopt various roles depending on context, including trickster, discordian, fool (qabalistically speaking!), sage, etc; often these roles conflict on an immediate level with the overall paradigm I maintain (but harmonize precisely and intricately with my overall paradigm on a broader level).

Politics is a waste of time, a bunch of people bickering over nonsense and trying to have it apply to everyone. I'd rather not leave my house and have to deal with other people. I should form a political party over that.

I just realized I should point out that I'm not an "anything goes" kind of guy. Many people would be somewhat surprised at some of my social views. I am anti-collectivist and anti-authoritarian, but I have a pretty clear conception of what is and is not a valuable path in life, and it's quite a bit more stringent than the views taken by a lot of my liberal friends. I can sympathize with certain aspects of modern liberalism, but I can't take a laissez-faire attitude towards things outside of my political philosophy. I am not into this "anything goes/don't judge me" way of thinking that many modern liberals take. Fuck that. I would rather hang out with a bible thumper to be quite honest (which suggests that I'd rather not hang out with some of the friends that I have, but I don't even think that those people truly believe the stuff that they say and their behavior militates against such views anyway). I disagree with the notion that coercion ought to be used to enforce certain conceptions of the Good (because of my ethical views), but that doesn't mean I don't have a conception of the Good.

I amNationalist: Preserve culture and bloodline.(Stalinist) Communist: Abolish the free market. The state should monopolize the market so that everybody works for the state for a comparative wage while profits go directly to the state.Authoritarian: The state should be considered more important than religion.Ecofascist: Strict environmental guidelines. Eugenics are enforced.

Overall a high quality of life and expansion of the territories (gaining resources) would be high on my agenda if I were a true revolutionary. But I'm a philosophical nihilist and not affiliated with any political group. I'm just mentioning utopian ideals here (as requested, right?) not practical/local politics.

I disagree with the notion that coercion ought to be used to enforce certain conceptions of the Good (because of my ethical views), but that doesn't mean I don't have a conception of the Good.

There is good coercion and then there is bad coercion. Just think of education as an example. However, if by coercion you imply deception, yours is a rather normal standpoint if you ask me. I always have to smirk when in his Politeia Plato suggests that the leaders should lie to the other castes for the good of the city, but elsewhere lets Socrates say, "I would rather die than to commit an injustice." I believe that when it comes to the city-state, Plato tends to undermine the love of the neighbour, without which, however, no good city-state is possible. But perhaps that is only a minor detail. That being said, the Politeia is a good model of a theocracy, and the occassional rationalism could be explained by the absence of a fresh Revelation at the time--which is not too different from the situation we have at the present time.

I'm a registered libertarian. I know for sure that I am liberal on social views. On the other hand, I am really torn on economic policies. For economics there are two questions: 1) How do economic systems work?2) How should they be implemented?

1 seems to be a prerequisite to figuring out 2. The problem is that we only so much about how economics seems to work. There seems to be a lot of misinformation and propaganda. Often when someone is advocating their economic philosophy, they argue that not only is the competing economic philosophy ethically wrong, but the science/research/reasoning it is based on is false. Question #2 is the only question that can be answered more or less apriori because it is an ethical or normative question.

I think that money should be used for the benefit of all people. It seems absurd that so many people can live in luxury yet other people are literally starving to death. On the other hand, people definitely have different levels of ability and are willing to put more effort in and risk more, so they should be rewarded more. Basically I believe that people should get what they "earn", although that is a pretty subjective concept and I'm not sure if this ideal can ever be attained. Ideally I would like to see this unfold naturally in the free market because it has a certain elegance that politicians trying to patch things up based on what is "fair" lacks. Private companies seem more efficient than government bureaucracies (eg the MVA) because there is no competition (for starters), and taxes really are technically taken by force. I suppose a "minarchist" view of public services such as the fire station or whatever appeals to me most.

Thinkers such as Ayn Rand appeal to me on one hand but so do Mikael Bakunin and Noam Chomsky. Also note they have divergent views on economics but seem to be in the same boat socially and on religion.

1) Nationalist: Preserve Culture and Race2) Eugenicist: Not "whooaa kill the weak". But gradually cleanse the race of bad genes, that are not just abstractly bad for the race but a potential torture for every kid born with these. The methods for those eugenics may vary, but I am more in favor of birth control than instant killing of lessers, why kill someone if you can prevent them from being born.3) for Federal Goverment / Autonomous Communities: Kind of restricted Federal Goverment, regulating only the vital national issues. For example if a community decides to dump toxic waste... waste them.4) Eco-Fascist: Nature valued above human "development". At least above more "development".5) Anti-Techno-crat: We don't need to actually attain nuclear annihilation in order to understand that technology is not some abstract godly progressive force. Technology is a tool, with a tool you can hunt for food, you can make art and you can destroy too. With a huge tool you can destroy everything. Add to that, advanced technology leads to over-specialization of jobs and alienation of people.6) Organised Religion: The masses need to be herded. The elite can believe in whatever they want to.7) Aristocracy: Only the best can rule.

Like lolmetal, I would call myself a pragmatist. I tend to lean towards the right on many issues, but I do not find the entirety of leftism to be at fault. I'm not opposed to miscegenation (as long as the two people who marry each other are both productive, happy people), I'm in favor of civil rights (as no one should be treated as inferior for their skin color if they have potential to do good in society), and I also do not oppose government funded welfare programs for people in need (such as temporary aid for a pregnant mother). However, I find humanism to be thoroughly repulsive and presumptuous. To think that we humans are THE most important thing on the Earth; HA! Don't make me laugh. I'm in favor of setting limits on family size, as well as implementing a voluntary neutering program for people who have the common sense to realize "hey, maybe I shouldn't have a kid". It's obvious I favor some eugenics programs too.

Regarding the OP's views, I would agree on the anti-authoritarian stance and private property rights, but I cannot fully oppose collectivism; as a healthy society which operates as a collective could accomplish much if given the chance to flower. Collectivism in modern times always seems to lead to communism or military dictatorship; the former having too much insistence on everyone sharing the load even if they do nothing, and the latter leading to paranoid leaders who slaughter their people needlessly in the name of "progress".

when people want me to defend it on consequentialist grounds, I can certainly play that game.

How about defense against Virtue Ethicists, Moral Skeptics, or Moral Nihilists? Also, do you mean Consequentialism or, more specifically, Utilitarianism? Finally, do you mean Act or Rule Consequentialism?

I amNationalist: Preserve culture and bloodline.(Stalinist) Communist: Abolish the free market. The state should monopolize the market so that everybody works for the state for a comparative wage while profits go directly to the state.Authoritarian: The state should be considered more important than religion.Ecofascist: Strict environmental guidelines. Eugenics are enforced.

Overall a high quality of life and expansion of the territories (gaining resources) would be high on my agenda if I were a true revolutionary. But I'm a philosophical nihilist and not affiliated with any political group. I'm just mentioning utopian ideals here (as requested, right?) not practical/local politics.

Hasn't most of this been tried before? Mainly Communism and authoritarianism? I think there is enough evidence to suggest that it fails relatively quickly. If people's lives are merely for the preservation of a "state" , what kind of existence is that? All you will be doing is working day in and day out with no real incentive but to make a secular organization wealthier. I think society needs at least some sort of spirituality that makes them feel a sense of awe and puts them in their place while making the transcendent a goal to work towards. Of course, this spirituality should be grounded in nature and culture. "The Earth is the truth". What I'm saying is, people need more than a state. They need to know that they can excel past their peers if they can prove themselves worthy and find themselves working towards a higher goal than "the state". Also, lets face it, NO ONE wants to live in a Communistic, authoritarian society.

I'm totally on board with nationalism, no complaints there. Reasonable nationalism is a sign of a healthy society.

To me, just setting the bar low and have everyone make the same money is exactly what we want to avoid. That is basically egalitarianism and fake "equality". Let those who are intelligent and can create make more and reward them.

Confucianism: act according to your nature, respect the hierarchy to which you were born, work within the system, "have no twisty thoughts", equity over equality ("the treasure of states").

I never took the works of Confucius as elucidating a concrete political system, more a loose template for natural human harmony (which is possible and doesn't exclude the reality of conflict).

Confucianism is certainly inductive to communal wellbeing, if it's adopted by all individuals within the community. I think Tokugawa Japan is a pretty good example of this - 250 odd years of relative peace and social stability, which was only rumbled by exterior (Western) influence (meddling). Meiji Restoration can suck my cock.